Diffusion of Corporate Risk‐Management Characteristics: Perspectives of Chief Audit Executives through a Survey Approach

Abstract

This study examines how corporate risk-management characteristics in Australian public universities have diffused under an environment of conflicting management cultures. The findings reveal that corporate risk-management characteristics have diffused in a pluralist form to satisfy stakeholders of different management approaches across its governance levels as opposed to a unilateral form aligned to the corporate approach. The accepted practice of this adapted version challenges the existing notion that the adoption of corporate control processes in the public sector is problematic, and provides insights into the emergence of a hybrid control process to address the needs of multiple stakeholders. These findings have policy implications for defining a new hybrid governance-control paradigm for the public sector as an alternative to the corporate-influenced control paradigm, and provide avenues for further research to confirm the phenomenon with other corporate control processes, public-sector entities, and if so its impact on effective governance.

Risk management in the public sector: a structured literature review

“…(3) Integrated approach of RM, in relation to the RM frameworks (ERM) (Crawford and Stein, 2004;Christopher and Sarens, 2018) and…”

“…Crawford and Stein (2004) highlight various areas of weakness guidance and policies adopted by local authorities, which could give rise to subjectivity in the implementation of RM. Christopher and Sarens (2018) argue this is to satisfy stakeholders at different managerial levels across organizations. They define three different levels of governance, namely a strategic level of governance, which includes policy and procedures to support a RM culture, an operational level of governance, which concerns the formalization of the RM structure and practices, and risk and control awareness at strategic and operational levels.…”

Exploring past, present and future trends in public sector auditing research: a literature review

“…neo-institutional, stakeholder and legitimacy theory), four referring to economic theories (e.g. agency theory, moral hazard theory) (Christopher and Sarens, 2018;Cordery and Hay, 2019;Heald, 2018;Raman and Wilson, 1994) and 18 referring to other theories (e.g. actor-network theory, paradox theory, organisational theory, political theory, psychological theories).…”

“…institutional theory and legitimacy theory) and sometimes from different groups (e.g. agency theory with stakeholder and resource dependence theory) (Christopher and Sarens, 2018;Colquhoun, 2013;Goddard and Malagila, 2015;Justesen and Skaerbaek, 2010;Lino and de Aquino, 2018;Stephenson, 2017).…”

“…neo-institutional, stakeholder and legitimacy theory), four referring to economic theories (e.g. agency theory, moral hazard theory) (Christopher and Sarens, 2018;Cordery and Hay, 2019;Heald, 2018;Raman and To analyse the theoretical approach used by scholars in the eligible papers, we categorised the different theories used and allocated them as economic theories or systemsoriented theories. Theories that could not be allocated into these two sets were classified as "other" (see Figure 6).…”